Hi! User:Alexbateman pointed me in the direction of your page. There are a large number of automatically generated pages for protein familes linked on User:Cboursnell/Sandbox. Please feel free to create new pages from any that interest you, or to use the content in these pages to improve existing pages. If you edit these pages to indicate which you have done, and also let me know which you have worked on, then this would be a great help. Many thanks --RE73 (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I will make a list of my changes and place it with other technical comments on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think for those families which form part of a multi-protein complex we should consider each case on an individual basis. With some a separate artcle for each subunit may be appropriate, with others one article could describe the whole complex. As you say, we need to follow the guidelines for notability here. If an article about a whole complex becomes too large it can always be split at a later date. Thank you for tidying the infoboxes on NADH dehydrogenase, this seems like a good solution in this case. On some other pages we may want to go one step further and put them all in an expandable bit at the bottom (sorry, I don't know the technical term for this!) as I have done in Helix-turn-helix. In this article I felt there was nothing to be gained by having the infoboxes readily visible, but the information is there should people wish to see it. I'm going to take a closer look at PF10409 (C2) as it may be that I can improve the Pfam family. I think in general fo clan members it would be ideal to have a page for the clan/superfamily and link from this to articles for the individual families. However, there will be cases where there is not sufficient information readily available to do this. --RE73 (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let's do it on the case to case basis. I agree with your solution in Helix-turn-helix. Alex simply forget to include PF10409 to appropriate clan (compare to SCOP). These C2 domains are the same superfamily or possibly even from the same family - this is rather arbitrary (do not mix them with these "C2" domains. Almost forget, the List of glycoside hydrolase families... I agree with removal of the boxes. However, we need to keep some text for individual families per WP:List. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added PF10409 to the C2 clan. Sorry for the delay on this - I've been pretty busy lately. Your work with the protein family pages is really appreciated. Thank you. --RE73 (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I will work more with protein families, bioinformatics and molecular modeling pages, as time allows. Right now I am quite busy with my "original research". My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently looking at the families which you suggested should be in clans. This will take some time! I am also going to try to build a new family from CarnocyclinA. We'd really appreciate it if you could email any such suggestions for new families, clans or any other changes to pfam-help@sanger.ac.uk - this way we can keep track of requests easily which may become lost or overlooked on my talk page. Many thanks --RE73 (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Be prepared for a long list. The determining superfamilies/clans is a very complicated business even if you know 3D structures. As Murzin said, he had to be very "conservative" in deciding which protein families are evolutionary related (belong to the same "superfamily"), rather than simply have a common "fold" in SCOP. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Done. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Hi. What you did was a brilliant idea that anyone can understand. Psychiatrick (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you mean that I stopped commenting on administrative noticeboards? Yes, that was certainly a brilliant idea. Speaking more seriously, I now understand much better the system (who is who and who is doing what on wiki). You know three rules of Gulag prisoners: Ne ver', ne boisja, ne prosi ("Do not trust, do not fear, and do not beg"). There are also three don'ts of wikiediting. I would call them: do not care, do not dispute and, most importantly, do not talk. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is an ambassador for wp:AGF! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, I don't understand why you deleted a section with no obvious problems from Membrane topology. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is very basic and important subject, but it was so poorly described that I thought it would be easier to rewrite from scratch.My very best wishes (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. And welcome back! Sorry you were having troubles last time. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main trouble is that I simply do not have time. A lot of articles in this area are in a very poor condition, and there are few to none people to improve them. My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A familiar problem! RockMagnetist (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. From the evidence you presented to Blade, and what I have seen otherwise, PCPP's recent editing (I am referring to the deletion of 6kb of material) of the Concerns about Confucius Institutes page doesn't contravene his topic ban on Falun Gong. He is not allowed to edit the parts of the article that mention Falun Gong. He is allowed to edit the article. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the text about Falun Gong appears in the diff [1], and the whole article is obviously related to Falun Gong. This looks obvious to me. However I leave this to administrators. If they think it was not a violation, so be it. My very best wishes (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I think you're the only uninvolved person who has weighed in, and that's really valuable (I would say the same even if I didn't generally agree with you, by the way). Regarding PCPP, I'm not sure if his latest edit war was a topic ban violation, though he certainly has violated the ban a few times since it was imposed (see his talk page). In any case, I fear that the volume of content at AE makes it difficult to assess all these things. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 16:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]